tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5233005700656191021.post267611727839844246..comments2014-08-18T21:33:53.003-07:00Comments on Yeah, but...: Separation of Politics and Science!Laura Nicholsonnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5233005700656191021.post-83980930501761052212013-05-18T17:16:43.596-07:002013-05-18T17:16:43.596-07:00Afterthoughts:
&quot;I would hazard to say that t...Afterthoughts:<br /><br />&quot;I would hazard to say that the climate change naysayers have exaggerated their unquantified claims far more than this article has.&quot;<br /><br />I don&#39;t see the relevance of this statement. Are you suggesting that we, as scientists, are somewhat justified in a certain amount of deception as long as our political opponents are worse than us?<br /><br />&quot;So while criticisms of these articles exaggerating the result may be justified, it is still a mute point, for there is essentially no debate in the scientific community about this topic.&quot;<br /><br />Are you saying as long as there is consensus on climate change, being misleading and deceptive about scientific truths is irrelevant? How is deception about science *ever* a moot point?<br /><br />Neither of these statements is at all reassuring.Laura Nicholsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01010829514185379535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5233005700656191021.post-380802621813229682013-05-18T16:39:27.949-07:002013-05-18T16:39:27.949-07:00My purpose in the blog post was not to dispute the...My purpose in the blog post was not to dispute the claim that there is consensus on the anthropogenic question among the papers that address the question. My purpose was to highlight how much so-called science lovers undermine their credibility by spreading misleading graphics and/or information. Speaking as a self-proclaimed science lover, I find it infuriating when people put agendas over accuracy.Laura Nicholsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01010829514185379535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5233005700656191021.post-46066069120018307652013-05-18T15:55:45.719-07:002013-05-18T15:55:45.719-07:00I will agree that the Guardian headline does infla...I will agree that the Guardian headline does inflate the result by using the phrase &quot;of climate science papers.&quot; The article itself is pretty explicit though, stating:<br /><br /> &quot;Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming&quot;<br /><br />The title of the Skeptical Science article -- &quot;Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming *in the Peer-Reviewed Literature*&quot; -- isn&#39;t necessarily referring to all climate papers ever written, but it doesn&#39;t quantify the result either, so I suppose you could say it&#39;s misleading. The Skeptical Science does clarify in the first sentence, however&quot;<br /><br />&quot;A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus *among papers taking a position* on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.&quot;<br /><br />After that, unfortunately, the paper waves the 12,000 figure around too much, as 4000 is the number that matters. The paper also has a pretty nasty pie diagram that I definitely agree is misleading. <br /><br />Nevertheless, 97% out of 4,000 papers is still a irrefutable result. No one else has come up with any real research that proves otherwise, and I would hazard to say that the climate change naysayers have exaggerated their unquantified claims far more than this article has. So while criticisms of these articles exaggerating the result may be justified, it is still a mute point, for there is essentially no debate in the scientific community about this topic.captain dino fuzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04013668024569942578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5233005700656191021.post-37724665782069808982013-05-18T14:18:51.424-07:002013-05-18T14:18:51.424-07:00She acknowledged that 97% is in regards to the pap...She acknowledged that 97% is in regards to the papers that gave a position. And that&#39;s *not* what is being claimed by the Guardian: &quot;The Guardian&#39;s headline that &quot;97% of climate science papers agree&quot; and Skeptical Science&#39;s claim that they &quot;found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature&quot; that global warming is anthropogenic (man-made)&quot; aren&#39;t referring only to the papers that stated a position. They are referring to all climate change papers, which is incredibly misleading.LNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05333402691717114966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5233005700656191021.post-7797622247226451662013-05-18T14:12:33.191-07:002013-05-18T14:12:33.191-07:00You are misinterpreting the methodology of the stu...You are misinterpreting the methodology of the study, although I will agree that the article could have been clearer. They looked at 11,994 papers, and of these, 66.4% did not state a position on whether climate change was manmade. Basic math then tells us that 4,030 of the 11,994 papers did give a position, and of these, 97% agree that climate change is anthropogenic. The only papers that matter in this study are the 4,030 that give a position. Not giving a position is very different from stating that we are uncertain about the causes of climate change, and as such, it is useless to consider those 66.4% of papers in the analysis. The 97% figure is not a lie as you say, but a robust scientific result.captain dino fuzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04013668024569942578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5233005700656191021.post-59716363349139188362013-05-18T11:48:10.859-07:002013-05-18T11:48:10.859-07:00And you know, it&#39;s like there used to be a tim...And you know, it&#39;s like there used to be a time when saying you were a skeptic or a free-thinker or that you &quot;believed in science&quot; (whatever that means) actually <i>meant</i> something. It meant that you were aware of your own cognitive biases and attempted to subvert them to arrive at the truth, or that you only trusted authority when the authority could back up their claims demonstrably. It meant you enjoyed critical thought.<br /><br />Nowadays, it seems it means that you have an internet connection and like snarky memes.Reecehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10691425406901685427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5233005700656191021.post-89591842831513727602013-05-16T18:57:11.649-07:002013-05-16T18:57:11.649-07:00Exactly.Exactly.Laura Nicholsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01010829514185379535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5233005700656191021.post-50413518669854384032013-05-16T18:51:17.792-07:002013-05-16T18:51:17.792-07:00*sigh*
Thanks for doing all of the grunt work on ...*sigh*<br /><br />Thanks for doing all of the grunt work on this, Laura. I&#39;m trying to imagine the thought process of these ardent fans of science and human knowledge...<br /><br />&quot;Statistic with no reference, claims something I already agree with, I don&#39;t know where the number came from and they don&#39;t tell me but SCIENCE!!! MUTHAF**ING SCIENCE!!! YEAH!!! Gonna post me some PIE CHARTS!!!&quot;<br /><br />*eye roll*Reecehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10691425406901685427noreply@blogger.com